Help me out here. Where did the Founding Fathers say “one man, one vote”?
Because I don’t see it in Article I, Section 2, Clause 1? And certainly not in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3?
They didn’t.
Where did they say one man = 23 votes which was the case in Baker v. Carr?
The Supreme Court loves them some original intent so what do you think the original intent of the FFs was?
Indeed, this is what the Supreme Court has found:
My bad…they did say it:
That doesn’t say one man one vote. That phrase is from other judicial opinions.
I’ve been pretty busy so haven’t read the opinion yet, have you? They do seem to address original intent, along with issues with median methods of district drawing.
I think this is the right call, not a justice able question, and better one left to states or legislatures. I’ll read the whole thing in a bit.
Indeed.
So how would Justice Bone interpret that part of the constitution?
One white man can = 23 votes? 50? 100?
Do you think there is a limit?
As for the second part why is it not justicable?
How is a population that has been disenfranchised supposed to rectify the situation at the ballot box? (I really want to hear how this works.)
Also, how does that square with a “republican form of government”?
I don’t know. generally I take that clause to mean representative government of and by the people, rather than monarchy, for example.
Beyond that, I’d need more soecifics. But Justice Bone would be fabulous.
Justice Bone just said Justice Bone doesn’t know so I think Justice Bone should be fired/impeached for not doing the job.
If I may, Justice Ultravires will answer.
This opinion does nothing at all to touch one person/one vote. I think Bone was saying that the republican form of government clause is not the rationale for one person/one vote.
The second part is not justiciable because there is no principled way in which a court can enforce partisan gerrymandering. On one hand, there is a slew of cases that say districts can be drawn with a partisan advantage in mind. It is also conceded that too much partisan gerrymander could likely pose other constitutional problems. The issue a court has is “How much partisan gerrymandering is too much?” What constitutional principle could be drawn to say that a +10% or +45% or +20% is “too much”? You would have judges redrawing districts in an ad hoc fashion based upon 5 votes that THIS is too much without any support from a constitutional text or value.
It can be fixed, not only by states, but by Congress. States can enact their own constitutional provisions to prohibit all partisan gerrymandering or their courts can find such a principle in their own constitutions. Just because a court cannot do it does not mean it is unsolvable.
Also, the republican form of government clause has been long held to be non-justiciable by the courts. It means what it says insofar that a state cannot have a monarchy or some such thing, but the limits of that are not something the Supreme Court has ever touched. Further, a republican form of government doesn’t even mean one person/one vote unless you are willing to say that the United States itself, because of the U.S. Senate, is not republican in character. It seems odd that the framers would add that clause but decide to form another type of government.
Further, I wouldn’t say that these people are disenfranchised. They can still vote. Just because you lose at the ballot box doesn’t mean that your vote wasn’t counted; it is just that others outvoted you. Roberts gave several examples of cases where plaintiffs complained that they could never win again, yet picked up seats in subsequent elections. Indeed, the Dems just took the House despite the gerrymandering.
These results, while not perfect, are far better than the Supreme Court acting as a national election board, taking the power away from the states and Congress is enacting legislative districts.
But they are disenfranchised.
IIRC in Baker v. Carr the table was tilted 23:1 in Tennessee. So, farmer Brown in the boonies vote counted 23 times to Joe Blow in the city. Is that something you are ok with? If you do not think the courts should deal with it how is that fixed at the ballot box? (really asking)
That the Supreme Court has said that clause is something they will not deal with is, in my view, just them dodging their job. What is more in their purview than seeing to it our democracy is maintained as written in Article 4 Section 4?
No one can stop them but are you ok with the Supreme Court just deciding some parts of the constitution they will not deal with? What parts of the constitution do you care about that you’d be ok with the SCOTUS ignoring?
Again, one person/one vote remains good law. The Court can and will still hear cases that violate one person/one vote. This is only about partisan gerrymanders.
Non-justiciable questions are not the Supreme Court refusing to do its job. To the contrary, it is a restrained decision in that it realizes that the Constitution created three branches of government, not just one, and that some things are fully entrusted to one of the other two branches.
Impeachment and removal comes to mind. The Constitution is clear that the House has the sole power to impeach and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases. It would be a disastrous result if the people’s elected representatives could not impeach and remove a Supreme Court Justice because the Supreme Court decided they couldn’t do so.
Yet the court has a self imposed restriction.
Not hearing “political questions” is nowhere listed as something the Supreme Court cannot do. They just imposed that on themrself.
The Supreme Court is 1/3 of the government. Separate but equal. They are not beholden to the Executive or the Legislature. They absolutely have the purview to tell the others that something is not right. The other branches have checks and balances on the court so all is good. No one, in theory, is being a dictator.
Yet the Supremes keep bowing out of “political questions”. Why? Because they chose it for themselves.
That is an abdication of their responsibilities as an equal arm of the government. Nowhere does it say they have to do that.
Forgot to add…
Gerrymandering is decidedly opposed to one person, one vote. Its entire reason for being is to buff the votes of one group and minimize the votes of another.
And yeah, both parties do it because of course they will if they can. Which is why we need a court to stop it. Legislators will never, ever vote away the thing that gave them their job regardless of party.
You really need to stop this false equivalence. “One person, one vote” means just that. No adult citizen’s vote should be denied. There’s no way anyone ever expected a perfect 1:1 power ratio throughout the kingdom.
Says you.
The ideal is each vote is counted equally as you well know.
To buff one vote and diminish another vote is literally opposed to the ideal of a democratic society.
“Repiblican form of government” does not equate to “one man, one vote”.
For example, when the Constitution was ratified, it’s estimated that only 6% of the population of the US had the right to vote, as cited by the wiki “Timeline of voting rights in the United States”:
But when they did vote, did all their votes count the same, or did some people’s votes count more than others?
The opinion directly addresses the “one man, one vote” construct:
This squarely addresses and dispenses with this line of argument.
The court also addresses this, recognizing the political nature of drawing districts even at the founding:
I think the “Three-Fifths Compromise” is kind of the smoking gun that a perfect power ratio “one man one vote” wasn’t the Founding Fathers’ utmost concern.
Political parties not being entitled to proportional representation is the argument I’ve used for awhile. I’m glad to see the Court agrees.
I’m also surprised that so many of these decisions are 5-4.
Yes, thanks for the correction. But what I meant was that their ruling will almost certainly keep the citizenship question off the 2020 census, whereas if Roberts was blindly partisan he would have tipped the balance in favor of keeping the question.
Or am I wrong about that, too? Is there still a way the GOP can get this question on the census?